User:SPIKE/2014-1

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Contents

I believe the current rules regarding graphic images are unfair, as whether or not a graphic image has comic validity is purely subjective. I believe the image did have comic validity as it is true that the people of North Africa are forced, on occasion, to eat human excrement. The object of the article is to lampoon South Sudan and for this reason I feel that the image was appropriate. I feel that to avoid confusion, graphic images should either be totally banned or they should be allowed.

Also your comments that the humour strategy of my article is to simply assert that everything in South Sudan is really shitty is untrue, the article is unfinished and does not yet include a number of subjects I aim to include in the article. It was also rude and unnecessary to accuse me of being "profoundly uncreative", especially when the article is not yet complete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added bySteveyt0 (talk • contribs)

I acknowledge (1) that you think something unfair has happened to you, (2) that you think describing South Sudan with a shit sandwich was funny, (3) that you think I wasn't nice to you, and (4) that you think I should not have done anything without waiting until the article seemed to be finished. It will amaze you to learn that none of the above matters but only whether you can begin to write an article that will amuse the general (post-puberty) reader.

In fact, graphic images unrelated to comedy are not leaving immediately, though they are being phased out, and the subjectivity has been an issue between our artists and our webhosts. I stand by my statement that the comedy strategies of simply running down an article's subject (with or without recourse to the turd hot dog) and of focusing on the residents' skin color are "profoundly uncreative"; compare the recent Paraguay and Chile. Now, why don't you take the above into account (as you have already started to de-emphasize black skin) and not make it out as though I am the issue? SpıkeѦ02:43 1-Jan-14

I've given it a quick re-write which I think should save it. It would be a pity to see such an important City's article go. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 19:40, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Been reading it. (No hyphen in "hotly-debated", please; adverbs ending in -ly are an exception to the hyphen rule.) Yes, it should save it (after the obligatory 24-hour death watch). SpıkeѦ19:43 1-Jan-14

I apparently just uploaded two videos onto Uncyc, according two uploads, which I did not do. Is this the same problem as before or something new? SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 12:17, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I know of no new problem. When you edit an article with videos that Wikia wishes to upload and make available "more efficiently," it will log you as the uploader. Always consider whether said videos are there to support original comedy writing or the joy of making our readers watch a TV program the author found funny on its own. SpıkeѦ13:41 2-Jan-14

I never used these videos (nor have I ever used videos for the purposes of keeping things original). It just randomnly put me in the upload log as uploading them (see for yourself). I have watched neither video but one has a pornographic title. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 14:27, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Please do not read statements such as my last as personal criticism! If you find that the article's text does not have original comedy that makes a compelling case for watching the video, do us the favor of ripping it out and listing it on QVFD as "orphaned by edit." SpıkeѦ14:32 2-Jan-14

I didn't take it as a criticism I merely thought you implied I was using the videos, when I wasn't. I will find out what articles they belong to. If I had it my way, unless you personally made the video for the purposes of Uncyclopedia, then the video should be deleted on the basis that it is unoriginal humour. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 16:10, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I view the emphasis here as original writing and not television-watching, though as Wikia has spent some time on efficient hosting of video, this is hardly official policy. But you are right that relying on someone else's video for humor is as unwelcome as uploading a Motivational Poster to do an author's work for him. SpıkeѦ16:16 2-Jan-14

Now, you have listed two videos on QVFD, but with an explanation that their users are on VFD. I should wait for the vote (or you should have waited before listing them), or you should edit the page and list the video as "orphaned by deletion" or something. I don't want to huff something on QVFD that will rip a hole in an article. SpıkeѦ16:42 2-Jan-14

Did you mean to revert the comment below?....You talked about IPs' identities in your change summary, but this one was not connected to it and was not trolling. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 17:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I am satisfied to end that conversation with Aleister's remarks. Although my Change Summary concerned only IPs' unverifiable claims about their own and others' identity, the other IP's attempt to clarify his remarks or set the record straight or prosecute a social crusade — coming as it did just after a tedious trolling-fest in which hundreds of copies of a file were uploaded — need not be preserved. Separately, good work today in cleaning up and organizing articles here, and please do not take any more time off from it to advocate for Anon's alleged free-speech rights. SpıkeѦ20:25 2-Jan-14

Hi Spike, the certificate illustration was not meant as bullying, sorry if I gave that impression. In fact, I am even proud of it that I am relatively good at spelling. I hoped people would find it funny that someone is proud of not very high scores, most people are very proud of high scores. Cheers. Flyingbird (talk) 19:20, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had not just specified a rights license but identified yourself as the artist. The problem is that the person named in that license is not a celebrity, we don't know who it is, and we don't know (even if you tell us) that that person does not mind being portayed as a double dolt (once for having low scores and again for thinking they are high). We take seriously defense of the website against uses that are or seem to be cheap shots against private persons (because seeming-to-be invites more of them). It would be better if you named a celebrity, and one known for intelligence (Hawking or Sagan) rather than a celebrity where the reader wonders if you're just calling him stupid. (Perhaps Joe Biden's out-of-the-blue citation of his IQ to an adversary makes him fair game, despite that concern, as it would at least be about something, although perhaps too subtle for the average reader.)

Separately, see above where ScottPat and I discuss the limits of reliance on illustrations. SpıkeѦ20:25 2-Jan-14

PS--Once, giving the history of the development of the Sunny D beverage, I invented (or remembered?) the name of someone I intended to be very fictional, and Wikia got a phone call demanding that it be taken out of the story, which I did. If it is a real person at all and that person consents on the use of the name, they may have second thoughts, as one person per week seems to want Uncyclopedia pages purged from the results of a Google search. Thus, such an illustration could be dropped later when you least expect it. SpıkeѦ20:30 2-Jan-14

What is wrong with my edits? How are they unconstructive? I didn't write "penis penis penis"...ban? For cleaning stuff up and making it funnier? I thought this was a wiki anyone could edit. What gives? 185.25.253.24 15:14, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Although of course done under multiple IPs, I found all your edits poor, including your link to Hoosegow, which I was amused to find we had one of, until finding that you created it too and it was nothing but a redirect; so you inserted a double redirect in the article.

There are many ways for an article to be funny, but it is basic respect to an author not to take an article being voted on and edit it to change its tone, especially toward the toilet. But what is basic respect when you and your pals are trying to manufacture the case that the website is not democratic and I personally am the problem? SpıkeѦ15:40 3-Jan-14

What? I didn't change the article's tone. The article already said something about "bodily orifices", and I thought I would streamline the joke by making it another language, so it wouldn't stick out so much. And what do you mean about "pals"? 0.o I don't understand... 185.25.253.24 15:52, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

And why did you delete all my votes!? 185.25.253.24 16:18, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I deleted no votes of 185.25.253.24, although I do not consider the vote on Paraguay legitimate, as it is double-counted and was briefly flipped to For to make a rhetorical point against the website. It is hard to know who "my" refers to, as you are obviously using multiple IPs. And committing ban evasion. SpıkeѦ16:25 3-Jan-14

Spike, I hate to stir up this fuss anymore but at a quick glance through IP:185.2.138.125's changes to Paraguay they seem to be to improve it such as, "No one knows" instead of "Not even Wikipedia knows" as this stops us refering to the website we parody. I may be wrong and it may be vandalism but I would request that you review your decision to revert that particular IP's edits to Paraguay. Thanks. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 17:45, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

No, even here, where I referred to Wikipedia because I was making a direct poke at material at Wikipedia, my text beats the old "no one knows" meme. Anon does not deserve half-a-loaf for feigning innocence and was not improving the article. SpıkeѦ17:58 3-Jan-14

Thanks for the explanation. Some users delete posts because they are not comfortable with their talk pages continuously growing (in which case the answer is to archive periodically, as I've done with mine). Then I peek in and wonder why you were never officially welcomed to the website! SpıkeѦ17:36 3-Jan-14

After listening to him on RT I checked out his page and it is corny and childish. It should be deleted or completely rewritten IMHO because no article is better than a bad one.--Funnybony20:32, Jan 7

The page attracts cruft because Jimbo is thought to be a website meme and that is thought to be worth instant noobie points. Did You Know? is total cruft and I might clean it up. Ridiculing a celebrity with his own words is not original humor; if his own words are so dumb as to be funny, that's advocacy. Apart from that, the page doesn't seem VFD-worthy, though you are welcome to take it in. SpıkeѦ22:15 7-Jan-14

Would you mind attempting a touch-up to this NFL player's page. It looks like a re-write could save it and as you've shown an interest in American Football before I thought you'd been the best man for the job! Thanks. SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 17:16, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

This page seems to be a running battle between a fanboy and a potty-mouthed detractor. I have done some baseline clean-up per our policy guidance, but unfortunately know nothing specific about Mr. Rodgers that I can convert to humor. SpıkeѦ21:51 11-Jan-14

What can I do to make the article acceptable for you? Is there a reason that you're deleting it, or are you just doing it to be irritating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byAnonymoussy (talk • contribs)

I explained on your talk page that I had moved the article to your userspace, and I also explained what needed to be done to it to make it suitable for the main encyclopedia. Please do not keep re-creating it in the main encyclopedia, including under slightly different names, but work on the version in your userspace. SpıkeѦ22:18 12-Jan-14

You just deleted my article and i dont know why. it is totaly fine that you guys are in the lead and have the permission to delete my things. but tell me why please. thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by138.41.2.3 (talk • contribs)

Of course. Only, I did not delete anything from 138.41.2.3. I assume you mean HowTo:Be Random. As I explained in the deletion summary, it is not enough to be random; not even in several different ways. This being a humor wiki, you also have to Be Funny, especially in a clever way such that the reader sees that you had a plan to be especially funny. If you would care to pick a user name, we will show you how. SpıkeѦ12:40,23:59 20-Jan-14

Would you mind giving autopatrolled rights to Harold Stone? As you already know, he's currently working on an article, and is, probably, not here to vandalize stuff. Whaddaya say? --Mimo&Maxus (Talk) 13:15, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Now done. But please pick up the JavaScript "patrol all" button (see UN:HAX#Patrol tools) to simplify your task in the future. Separately, I have nagged Harold to use the Preview button. SpıkeѦ14:20,15:06,15:12 24-Jan-14

I have no idea how to do that and the instructions on the proposed page above were not clear enough (and no, I didn't get my dick stuck in the ceiling fan). --Mimo&Maxus (Talk) 22:55, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

I've set you up (see RecentChanges). The confusing part is that your "personal JavaScript file" is defined up at the start of the section. SpıkeѦ23:04 24-Jan-14

In the past, you have frequently lectured users for removing contents from their talk pages without creating an archive; However, according to Wikia's policies, "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored." Since you're very eager to behave according to Wikia's rules, I thought you should know that. --Mimo&Maxus (Talk) 23:22, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not to get right to this, but I have been having fun, and at your own instigation on VFD. I know a lot of you think I am "eager" to obey rules rather than give youse a playground, and that is unfortunate because that isn't the point.

Anyway, Wikipedia's rules are not the same as on Wikia's wikis (for example, Wikia articles don't have to be neutral nor have independent citations), and we famously are different from many other Wikia wikis (slightly wider latitude for nudity, much wider latitude for obscenity and stuff-that-looks-racist, a separate user namespace, and so on).

Making production of articles the focus was Mordillo's. Insisting that users not rewrite the past on talk pages was also years-old policy when I joined. It seems wise, as so much effort is spent assembling cases against people, that we not have to pore through the History to see what people really wrote. MrN9000 banned me in the early days to insist on this, and Mordillo had several actual and threatened bans to keep me in focus. And I do make exceptions, as anonymous trolls, banned users, and users on a soapbox to pull us off our writing don't have a right to be in the record at all.

The thing I am "eager" to do is define "funny" as funny for the reader, not funny for the writer, as in writing about bowel movements. Because Wikia, or whomever they sell this dog to, will eventually use it to try to make money. There are only two possibilities: (1) Our content be good enough that readers be willing to wade through potato-chip ads to read it, or (2) We get the ads ourselves. So I insist that we strive for a quality product. SpıkeѦ00:53 25-Jan-14

Regards talk pages, I think creating an archive of previous conversations is a good idea. Otherwise it would mean flicking through deleted content. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate)® 21:13, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I tried to sign up as you suggested, but after entering my gmail several times, I still see no such confirmation or link. What happened? I thought I signed up correctly. 162.232.160.156 19:55, January 24, 2014 (UTC)MonkvsLudlow

Thanks for your inquiry. I see nothing on the wiki activity log--which doesn't prove anything, as the User Creation Log has been broken for several months now and we no longer see even successful account creations.

I have a pay-per-megabyte internet service and often run with the accessories disabled. Please verify that JavaScript and Cookies are enabled and try again; failure to do this sometimes makes the Uncyclopedia log-in fail in cryptic ways, such as with a note that your session has "timed out."

Do keep trying, or perhaps contact Wikia to see what is going wrong. The site is continually being tweaked and things experience actual failures from time to time. I look forward to giving you an official welcome! SpıkeѦ20:01 24-Jan-14

I do not know. But to make it really perverse, I have heard that registering on Wikia not only creates a username that cannot be used here, but keeps you from creating an account with the same name here. "To avoid confusion." If this is what you are trying to do, try something else! If you get on, read the procedure at the top of User talk:Sannse for exercising your once-in-a-userlife chance to change names, though she may well tell you your desired username "is taken" (as "Spike" is, forcing me to all-capitals). SpıkeѦ00:06 28-Jan-14

I edited it a bit, so the checkers idea is not abandoned, some parts are easier to read and references and image captions are not that long. Do you think it's good? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 19:56, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I've started boiling it down slightly. The footnote with Che[c]ka restates the obvious pun and ought to go. SpıkeѦ20:36 27-Jan-14

Have gotten to the end. The original author had a powerful hunger to teach us about Russian history rather than entertain, which sometimes got in the way, and an annoying tendency to use the "would" tense, as though the narrator were in the past but writing about his future. SpıkeѦ21:27 27-Jan-14

Not very surprising, as it was a user's first article. Your edits significantly improved it! Do you think it will be fine for VFH? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 08:09, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's one of the site's best, nominate it. I think that rather than do a lot with a little, it does a little with a little, still too anxious to use humor to teach the facts rather than use the facts in the service of humor. On your most recent edit "correcting" the Russian, I'm sure Alfonts was quoting the actual FSB charter, in which the phrase might have been in the genitive and even nonstandard. This being Uncyclopedia, though, neither correct Russian nor a correct quote is paramount; if some of those Russian snippets wanted to be abuse of Cyrillic letters to spell out an English word, that might be funny. SpıkeѦ09:19 28-Jan-14

Oh, well, I did not find it funny, just phrased in a wrong way. I tried to find this FSB charter but couldn't. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 16:20, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find it funny either, and the average reader won't even be able to sound it out. But the corrected one is the same. So: If you can do something better, do so! I think the snippets of Russian and German should only be used to give the article an air of authority, and not be repeated. SpıkeѦ16:36 28-Jan-14

I remembered it from Red Hot Pawn, which PuppyOnTheRadio and I rescued from some vanity authors who arrived from that website.

Now, I think that any further effort to draw links with revolutionary Russia should carefully cling to the comedy story-line. Also, perhaps we should be more consistent: "Cheka" is the organization but the name of the game we are talking about is "draughts" and there is no pun at all (except the one the reader has grasped). Separately, pick one type of quotation marks (not counting {{Cquote}}) and stick with it. SpıkeѦ18:02 28-Jan-14

I will look at quotations. I think I found most of the links to the Russian history. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 18:04, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, day-trip to Boston.) I reread it, tightened up your recent additions, and removed a couple other old passages that will try the patience of non-European readers, such as one of the two references to GPU/OGPU, and the comparison between Alexander III and Nicholas II — an attempt to make the narrative fit Russian history not in the direct service of humor. Also added an initial quotation I also used in the Chaco. The article is well-polished now. SpıkeѦ14:29 29-Jan-14

Obviously, 81.132.181.192 is not banned. (Until now.) Being banned means you live apart from the life of the website for the term of the ban, and not just until you use alternate IPs to compose enough pestering messages that themselves don't follow the simplest posting rules. I do not envisage unbanning anyone today. SpıkeѦ14:58 29-Jan-14

The page User:Breech_Loader/Shadow_The_Hedgehog is ready for its first review and potentially going up as a real page - I tried to take your advice and make it more obvious that women don't want to be raped. I hope I did good. One little request - if it goes up, could it be mentioned in the Sonic Characters template? And of course, 'The' has to be 'the' as you said.

When it's up (thereby proving to me I can write an Uncyclopedia article), I'm gonna start a page on Rouge the Bat. Yes, I know a guy started a page on Rouge but I kinda had a different (hopefully better) idea...Breech Loader (talk) 17:17, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Great article! Now mainspaced; the old name will no longer work. Without a doubt it is both better than nothing and better than the versions once deleted from the website, and in fact it is much better than that. I rearranged the paragraphs in your Intro.

However, in my opinion, the humor is still heavy on rape for no clear reason, and your little Public Service Ad at the end neither makes up for it nor is funny in its own right. SpıkeѦ17:45 31-Jan-14

I'll see what I can think of; I suppose part of me was inspired by Tails the Straight. And I'll remove the 'ad'. Can't say I found it useful either. - wait, you did that. Whatever...Breech Loader (talk) 18:18, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

The perfect result at Uncy of the Year, you and Simi tying! Well deserved. Aleister 15:42 1-2-14

This must have taken virtuoso stage-managing. But Romartus was aboard as well, and ought not feel left out. I have not checked this page since I peeked in and saw that you nominated me, for which thanks! SpıkeѦ17:11 1-Feb-14

Do you know how to change the year and name on the previous award picture? Or am I just supposed to find the trophy on google images and do some photoshopping? SirScottPat(talk)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 17:05, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

I recall that it took Shooping last year. If you are able to do it, that will probably be faster than poring through the record to find out who did it, asking them, and waiting for a response. SpıkeѦ17:11 1-Feb-14

SPIKE, I have greatly revamped the Zelda CD-i article. Would it be possible for you to give more suggestions, or perhaps do a Pee Review?--EpicWinner (talk) 20:08, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but much later today; am at the basketball game where WiFi is crappy, then must give thought to eating, also to visiting the Converse Factory Outlet. SpıkeѦ20:17 1-Feb-14

My initial reactions are much the same as to your other work.

It hangs together well, but in view of the fact that you are presenting several different works in the same article, you might want to have a different internal structure, such as a thick horizontal line between the major sections. Also, see if you can have several footnotes lists, one per videogame.

The WINNER and LOSER joke, again, is to me a big inside joke that needs a hint to set it apart from a young author injecting personal opinion.

The "CD-i" suffix on the titles strikes me as something a reader wouldn't type; a more Wikipedia-ish page title might be Zelda (game). SpıkeѦ20:28 1-Feb-14

Any more suggestions? I'm a huge "fan" (in an ironic way) of the Zelda CD-i games, and I would like to see this article become an FA in the near-future. Also, I have a few questions:

Should I add more info about the characters that appear in the game (such as Glutko, Harlequin, Militron, Lupay, Goronu, etc.)? Or do only the "main" characters really matter?

I've been thinking about splitting the article off into three when each section grows large enough. Should Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon be one article, or two (since they both play and look the same)?

Do you know anyone who could perhaps "spice up" the article a bit, maybe add some info about gameplay and add a bit more humor? I hate to say this, but I'm not really that good of a writer when it comes to comedy; editing is more my thing.

I have no more suggestions as I do not know these games. It does not matter how many articles you package the games into as long as it seems to make sense and, as above, you use ink on the page to show the divisions as clearly as possible. Your articles on videogames will be as slow to be featured as my articles on minor Latin American countries; unless the writing style is outstanding, nobody cares. Your take on individual characters in individual videogames will not be of interest to anyone even with outstanding writing. Again I see WINNER cropping up in another article of yours; this does not resemble humor and it does resemble an attempt to "sign" your articles, create a new website meme, or create a personal story-arc of articles on the site, which puts yourself before the reader. I hope that helps! SpıkeѦ23:56 9-Feb-14

I could do it; or you could do it; or you could just tell me what you don't like and I could fix it. One difference between Wikipedia templates and our templates is that Wikipedia's are designed to be completely filled out, while ours are designed to look clean even if not completely filled out, to discourage authors from filling it out with cruft. SpıkeѦ00:07 2-Feb-14

On further review, WP:Template:Infobox video game does a much better job than we do at handling omitted fields. However, we already have one by the same name and it is used by about 50 pages in mainspace. So if you bring the code over, call it something else unless you want to promise to make sure none of these 50 pages break. SpıkeѦ00:18 2-Feb-14

Call me a n00b, but I don't really know to transfer infoboxes from Wikipedia to here. If it gets imported, I think it should be called "Infobox VG" to differentiate it from the other one.--EpicWinner (talk) 00:31, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The infobox seems to be screwed up, though, probably because Uncyc doesn't have all the templates Wikipedia has. Next to some of the fields is a weird "|- style=""" .--EpicWinner (talk) 01:29, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

You only get one wish, and I granted it. Thanks for importing enough other templates to make it work; also please trim it down to eliminate fields that the average author can do nothing with except think up nonsense numbers. I don't know what to make of your wikitable excerpt above — nor do I see it anywhere in {{VG}}. |- at the start of a source line means start a new row of the table; style="" would be a legal no-op. SpıkeѦ01:40 2-Feb-14

Do you know anyone smart enough to un-fuck the template? Also, any more suggestions on the CD-i article?--EpicWinner (talk) 02:54, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

What? you mean importing the entire God-damned Wikipedia template library didn't do it? Try using the template in Zelda CD-i and see what fails. Respond to the red-links by simplifying (as you already did for the piped links in the table itself). I can "un-fuck" some aspects of Wikicode; so can PuppyOnTheRadio.

I still haven't read the article in detail. I am not a gamer and you must throw us some bones early to keep us reading. I remember reading that something was a "side-scroll" and thinking: Guess you have to be a gamer to get this. SpıkeѦ03:05 2-Feb-14

The red links are fixed, but |- style="" appears in some of the fields, as does Script error . This happens when I try to insert the infobox in the Zelda CD-i page. If you go to Template:VG and scroll down to the syntax guide, you'll see it.--EpicWinner (talk) 03:37, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

This experiment shows signs of littering Uncyclopedia with dozens of templates that, if you don't understand them, no one else is going to either. Start thinking about using the existing template and simply asking me to help fix the aspects of it that you find unattractive. I could study what #invoke does, but I suspect we don't need InfoboxImage and a solution here is just to copy the code to do the image from the existing template. Meanwhile, I should not have named it {{VG}} but {{Infobox VG}}. SpıkeѦ04:04 2-Feb-14

PS--The code in some of the fields should not be a problem ("" signifying that you didn't specify a custom style) except that it appears in a field. Stand-alone, again, it just starts a new row of the table. Is this an effect of specifying an image file that doesn't exist? SpıkeѦ04:15 2-Feb-14

No, it seems to be an effect of not using every field in the infobox. In the syntax guide, it appears right next to Nintendo's name in the "Publisher(s)" field, and some of the ones after that.--EpicWinner (talk) 04:28, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I see you have indeed returned to trying to make {{Infobox video game}} work. Please don't pursue Wikipedia's flourishes such as bars of alternating colors, and please keep in mind that any bells and whistles you install should not be seen by newbies as requiring them to type more stuff into the form than they have that is funny. Are you ready for me to delete all the stuff you brought over from Wikipedia yesterday? SpıkeѦ13:43 2-Feb-14

The article was deleted somewhere in 2012 but the talk page still exists. I would place it on QVFD but it currently consists of two posts, both of which are written in a humourous way and there is some funny stuff even for people who don't know the band well. Do you know what can be done? Thanks. Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 10:21, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Spike, please either remove Mhaille's votes on VFD as well or put mine back. Of explain why you pick on me like a dog picks at fleas and leave Mhaille alone. To be fair, you must be fair (or fairly fair). Thanks. Aleister 20:19 13=2=14

Hey, I was wondering if I could keep the Bush article on Gavin Rossdale page. He doesn't have anything about Bush and he formed Bush, so there must be a article about that. Also, the Gavin page is old because Bush reformed. I just want people to shit their pants and laughed and have a funny joke with the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by50.133.242.45 (talk • contribs)

What? Who? You can't keep anything, because Anons don't have userspaces to keep anything in. Pick a user name, please. Also, I have gone back a week in the Huff Log and can't figure out what article you are talking about. SpıkeѦ05:05 16-Feb-14

Oh, I see; you are Metallica81baby editing un-logged-in. No, you may not. Your edit to Gavin Rossdale is ranty, obscene, parts of it are in all capitals, unfunny, and unencyclopedic. If you would use your user name, you would see that I wrote this to you earlier. SpıkeѦ05:17 16-Feb-14

Am pleased that the Advanced Namespace Pulldown didn't trip me up again and create UnSignpost:UnSignpost:UnSignpost:something. Thanks for your tireless work getting the organization of these articles to make sense. SpıkeѦ11:59 18-Feb-14

You are thank. And welcome you all! Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 17:32, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

This admits of only one interpretation: Anton is high on whatever the Wikia servers have been high on today. (Once, I got "Please configure the wiki" — which I interpret as installation of a new MediaWiki version that will make everything break, again.) SpıkeѦ17:52 18-Feb-14

I saw this as well. But the appearance of Uncyclopedia, has not changed right? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 17:56, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

PS--I did notice that Special:RecentChanges has new animations, even though I followed instructions to disable this the last time. I run on yard-sale computers and do not like my cycles wasted on cartoons. SpıkeѦ18:02 18-Feb-14

PPS--Don't you think that 74.170.149.220 is news? The Anon with a quick hand with the Categories who doesn't want to register? Who do you think he is? SpıkeѦ18:16 18-Feb-14

An Anon with a quick hand with the Categories. I am afraid to make a more specific guess.

Separately, do you think about an article about in-jokes that I've just written at UnSignpost:UnSignpost/20140218 is better than Suddenly, In-Jokes? Anton(talk)Uncyclopedia United 19:27, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

That is breezy enough to allay all my previous concerns. And a much better read than asking OMGWhatHaveIdone to write a "brief" note about himself, if you haven't seen his Change Summaries. SpıkeѦ19:37 18-Feb-14

Sorry Spike. Wondered if you thought this article is funny because I am struggling to decide whether it is or not. Yes, it is written in the style of what it is however surely a more clever and original idea would suit it. Thanks. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 14:12, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

You woke me up for this? (In other words, why are you apologizing?) The article is not funny and it is not clever. Someone saw a page at Absurdity and decided that he had a blank check to write any junk, provided it is absurd, and we will revere it as yet another of our "Pages that look like the things they're about". The author knew he was writing crap and even prepended a template to label it as such (supposedly conferring even further immunity).

What would be clever is to write an article about reductio ad absurdum, the debate technique of extending an opponent's argument to the absurd, combined with several examples that — how shall we put this — don't quite do it right. (They might help the opponent make the argument, they might be random rather than extrapolations, or they might be nitpicky instead of coherent.) SpıkeѦ16:04 18-Feb-14

I'm afraid that to apolagise is merely the custom of how the Englishman begins each conversation. Thanks. I'll VFD it then. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 19:11, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm complaining but I see that one small addition to an article that I added has now turned into a collaboration re-write!! In that case I will go all out on it and do the best I can with it. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 08:31, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by the "firms" section. I do not know too much about English football fans but I've never heard them being refered to as firms. The only organisation I know that refers to itself as "the firm" is MI6 (British Secret Service) so maybe it might be a joke on that but I highly doubt it. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 08:53, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

A technical problem....I've noticed recently that whenever a new forum or VFH page is created or a vote added on VFH Uncyclopedia takes about a day to display it. I added a forum last night (that would be about 14hrs ago) and it still hasn't appeared yet on the village dump. This is a new phenomena and I wondered if you (or other admins) know why this is happening (it might even just be my computer/internet). Thanks. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 10:47, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

At about midnight UTC I edited {{Lead articles}} for UnNews and was astonished to see my revised copy of the template in one tab, and a fresh new Front Page in another tab that did not pick up the changes. The easiest way to understand the concept is that we have servers that accept edits, servers that dispense text of pages, and occasionally they have little spats, throw ash trays, and so on. Yesterday was a bad day for the servers in general. I know of no new problems. SpıkeѦ13:29 21-Feb-14

Now, regarding User talk:Anton199: You made a spelling "correction" to my text ("surely at the hands of referees whom passers-by claimed were 'gay' despite the best efforts of the government") only if "passers-by claimed them were 'gay'" is English. I had to think about this before typing it. Referees is not the direct object of the embedded sentence but a subject of "to be." SpıkeѦ13:29 21-Feb-14

Hmm...I'll take your word for it as you do this kind of stuff for a living but for some odd reason (probably a consistency of using the wrong grammar in this case throughout my entire life) it doesn't read to me naturally unless I replace it with a "whom". SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 13:43, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

passers-by claimed them

passers-by claimed they were gay

whom passers-by claimed

who passers-by claimed were gay.

If you agree with the first pair, you must agree with the second pair. SpıkeѦ13:47 21-Feb-14

Yes, yes I see. Maybe it's because I regarded the sentence as a "passers-by claimed them to be gay." I don't know though. Not sure about the American education system but the British one teaches English with almost no emphasis on learning rules, just learning how to speak naturally and as I am not a linguist scholar, I can only judge English by what sounds/reads naturally and what doesn't (and of course colloquialism (of which I have to use at least two different forms per day) can bias that heavily). You don't need to bother reading this I'm just thinking things over as a type. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 13:51, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Your rephrasing is also correct English. Rules are your friend; learning them saves you from having to rely on patterns you have heard. The rule in this case is that whom is not mandated by the fact that it was moved to the first word in the clause, but determined by how it is used in the clause. (For the fact that neither of the things linked by "to be" is regarded as the direct object: I blame the British.) SpıkeѦ13:55 21-Feb-14

Must admit the World would be so much easier to live in communication wise if we were all to use Spanish! (Mind you there's many different variations and pronounciations of that!) SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 14:00, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

And still rules to learn, though I have always considered theirs more elegant than ours. Now, back to the start, which one of you is going to write an UnNews on how the Russians were robbed??? SpıkeѦ14:02 21-Feb-14

Yes, by a gay call of a gay referee in a nation where that is supposed to be illegal; see the UnNews talk for other story ideas. SpıkeѦ14:16 21-Feb-14

Yes nice idea. I see I was going to write an UnSignpost article on the VFP reformation and I think it will be more fitting if Anton wrote the UnNews article as he may take an interest in ice hockey (which I only do up to the extent of making sure Canada win it again so that I can add a gold medal to the British Empire medal table (only kidding!)) and he's a Russian and could write it more passionately. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 14:23, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

My omission, now rectified. I was going to do so, last night, but the 24-hour clock had not run out. (I am not going to archive it until tonight, as people ought not have to pore through the archive to see what happened to it, except when we are scraping against the 20-ballot limit.) SpıkeѦ14:33 21-Feb-14

Now, are you going to reread WikiHeaven and reconsider your nomination??? SpıkeѦ14:37 21-Feb-14

Very good. I'll tamper with VFD now. I don't know whether you're finished yet so I won't add anything but how about a joke on how wikiheaven has limited storage (like the jokes made on heaven having limited places). Also maybe make jokes about active users and inactive users at wikiheaven as this would emphasise that there is more to the afterlife than just wikiheaven. Finally, how about some jokes about how wikiheaven is not as good as it claims to be as everyone can use it so the definition of good is contradicted and broad (a joke on the reliability of wikipedia, a free wiki anyone can edit). Just some ideas. Tell me if you like them and even if you want me to add them in. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 14:43, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I am "done" in the sense of making the article Keepable, but no articles are ever "done." Some of your ideas seem at odds with the theme of the article that WikiHeaven is eternal and infinite, but I suggest you create a new section (though the final section is a good final section) and I'll post-edit. Wonder if post-editing happens in WikiHeaven. SpıkeѦ14:49 21-Feb-14

OK you reverted my attempt to include the joke about wikipedia reliability. Can you fit the same idea in a different style of joke in somewhere? Not sure what was random about it. The Bible and the Qu'ran are supposedly books that tell you how to be moral and good and unlike a wikiheaven's morals are not free for anyone to edit. The KFC bit was just an add on joke about KFC, bit memish, so maybe it was best to cut that. SirScottPat(converse)VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 15:28, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The ideas are good, but they had better locations, and I didn't want to see this piece of serious-seeming allegory end in goofiness, though the same goofiness is fine en route as an ingredient. Now, you touch on another idea, or I mis-read it as one: Reliability, which yesterday and today makes me think: server reliability. SpıkeѦ15:53 21-Feb-14